The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:19-cv-00728-FtM-60MRM
APPROXIMATELY $126,880 IN
UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy entered on January 7, 2020. (Doc. 24). By
and through the well-reasoned report and recommendation, Judge McCoy
recommends that the Court:
(1) grant the “United States’ Motion for Leave to File Reply” (Doc. 16), nunc
pro tunc, and construe the motion as a reply;
(2) grant the “United States’ Motion to Strike Statements of Rights or
Interest” (Doc. 18);
(3) strike the Lorzeno Brown’s and Quenita Mara Harris’s respective
“Statement[s] of Right or Interest” (Doc. 17), with leave to file an amended
claim;
(4) grant the “United States’ Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 14);
and
(5) strike the “Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem for
Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted” (Doc. 13)
without prejudice to Claimants’ ability to renew their motion thirty days
after they file their amended claims.
No party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to
object has expired.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, Congress vested Article III judges with
the power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial
matter pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III
judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). After conducting a careful and complete review of
the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district
judge review the facts de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir.
1993). However, the district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the
absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th
Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),
aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). When no timely and specific objections
are filed, case law indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See
Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
After careful consideration of the record, including Judge McCoy’s report and
recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court
agrees with Judge McCoy’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal
conclusions, including that the Claimants lack standing and cannot move to dismiss
this action, but that they should be granted leave to file amended claims.
It is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. “United States’ Motion for Leave to File Reply” (Doc. 16) is GRANTED, nunc
pro tunc, and construed as a reply.
2. “United States’ Motion to Strike Statements of Rights or Interest” (Doc. 18) is
GRANTED.
3. Lorzeno Brown’s “Statement of Right or Interest” and Quenita Mara Harris’s
“Statement of Right or Interest” (Doc. 17) are STRICKEN. Brown and Harris
may file an amended claim that complies with the directives of this Order on
or before April 4, 2020.
4. “United States’ Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
5. Claimants’ “Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem for
Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted” (Doc. 18) is
STRICKEN. Claimants may renew their motion thirty days after they file
their amended claims, consistent with this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Myers, Florida, this 5th day of
March, 2020.
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 3